After having dilligently scrubbed through all the posts here in the past three days so as to not run afoul of our intrepid readers ;-), I submit likely one of the most useful things to come from Dan Savage in about a decade. (Not that I don’t like his stuff, but rarely is he this good.)

Over at The Stranger, Dan asks his readers (and I ask ours) to join him for “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on May 20th in support of my fellow Centennial StatesmenTrey Parker and Matt Stone:

80 Comments

This may be the first time that I’ve even been in complete agreement with something you posted. Any Muslim who wants to get mad over depictions of Muhammed can go fuck themselves. It’s both a freedom of speed and freedom of religion issue (freedom of religion requires that non-Muslims have freedom from Islam).

Not a good idea to gratuitously offend tens of millions of people (think depictions of Christ in urine or dung, or blackface displays). All it accomplishes is showing how shallow and unimaginative the purveyor is.

Put some thought into it. There’s got to be a better way to respond to hate than by fanning the flames of a pretext it uses to thrive on.

Not a good idea to gratuitously offend tens of millions of people (think depictions of Christ in urine or dung, or blackface displays). All it accomplishes is showing how shallow and unimaginative the purveyor is.

For someone who wants us to “put some thought into it” that sure was a stupid comment, Banzel. Positively moronic, in fact. Unless, of course, you want to spend your life as a slave to jihadist demands.

Black face is an exercise in arrogant racism. And the fuss over “Piss Christ” was because the photographer was being subsidized by the government. Christians don’t threaten to kill people when Jesus is criticized.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali told Anderson Cooper, “There is one group of people, one religion that is claiming to be above criticism,” and that would be Muslims.

If Islam ceased to exist today, the world would be a much more peaceful place tomorrow. Everybody knows this. Yet people like you want us to kiss the Islamic world’s collective ass. Bullsh*t. Muslims can grow up and behave like civilized human beings or they can go to hell.

I’m glad you brought that up. Frankly, I’m surprised it took this long for someone to do so. I have more to say on just that topic, but it boils down to this:

Yes, I recognize and acknowledge that it’s insensitive to Muslims (for whom it’s an insult to depict their prophet).

That said, once their leading clerics express their indignation through means other than threats of murder, I’m sure most Americans (for whom freedom of speech covers things like the “Piss Christ”) will be totally amenable to respecting those wishes.

Bottom line:
–“Piss Christ” is offensive. Christians’ reaction: A) Don’t make us pay for it with tax dollars (DENIED), B) Please don’t do it (DENIED). C) Okay, well it offends us.
–Depictions of Muhammad are offensive. “Religion of Peace”‘s reaction: Threats of murder.

Satire like South Park (or photos like Piss Christ) may be gratuitously offensive and demonstrate the shallowness and lack of imagination of their creators. Or they may demonstrate how shallow and gratuitously offensive are the beliefs of the people they offend.

However you make the judgment call, we are dealing here with the one religion that is causing chaos. Standing up to it is far more important than worrying about hurting people’s feelings.

–”Piss Christ” is offensive. Christians’ reaction: A) Don’t make us pay for it with tax dollars (DENIED), B) Please don’t do it (DENIED). C) Okay, well it offends us.

And after C, the left still calls Christians violent, hate-filled rubes.

I am still debating the best way to approach the challenge. Part of me wants to do something really offensive… like Mohammed feeding bacon to a dog. But I realize even doing something inoffensive will still offend the radicals, so why not just show him grinning and waving…

With all due respect to Banzel and BDB, fear of offending tens of millions of people is what got Theo van Gogh killed; this rhetoric wasn’t shut down in Europe, and look what has happened all over there.

If I had been in charge in Denmark when the lunatics started rioting over those cartoons, I’d have ordered the walls of every public building to be covered with them.

If you don’t strongly protect your freedoms, you will wake up one day and find that they have all been systemically taken away, for fear of offending people.

My understanding of Islam is that ANY depiction of Mo is worthy of death to the perpetrator. Given that, we can prove our point without resorting to a “Piss Christ” type of drawing. We don’t have to sink to the their level by showing Mo feeding bacon to a dog, although the image does bring a smile to my face. A generic looking arab man with a caption of Mohammed should be enough to give the Islamo-fascists gas.

I think Dan (Blatt, not Savage), Banzel and Ann Althouse have it right here:

“I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren’t doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).

“I don’t like the in-your-face message that we don’t care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the ‘Piss Christ’ controversy, I wouldn’t have supported an ‘Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day’ to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways.”

Figure out a way that I can offend Islamic fanatics without also purposely offending innocent bystanders who dont deserve it, and I’m there.

Surely, there must be a way to offend only a more targeted group? Maybe depictions of the REAL reasons terrorist blow themselves up?

The minute there were multimillion-dollar bounties on those cartoonists’ heads, The Times of London and Le Monde and The Washington Post and all the rest should have said “this Thursday we’re all publishing all the cartoons. If you want to put bounties on all our heads, you better have a great credit line at the Bank of Jihad. If you want to kill us, you’ll have to kill us all.

(Follow the first link and read the whole thing, I recommend.)

Only by all freedom-loving people standing up to the menace of threats of death are we ever to rid ourselves of this scourge of humanity.

As a Roman Catholic, I only wish we’d have had the Internet during the Inquisition…perhaps my church would have seen the light sooner, and with less carnage.

Yes, I recognize and acknowledge that it’s insensitive to Muslims (for whom it’s an insult to depict their prophet).

That said, once their leading clerics express their indignation through means other than threats of murder, I’m sure most Americans (for whom freedom of speech covers things like the “Piss Christ”) will be totally amenable to respecting those wishes.

Exactly. In certain people haven’t noticed: Islamo-fascists will KILL you for depicting Mohammed (and other real or imagined slights to their religion). That is an excellent reason to do it.

Otherwise – Where will it end? Why not just cave into Sharia, now? There is only way to deal with fascists: insult them. Ridicule them. Then fight them (or help those doing the fighting), if they try to kill you. Of course it’s an insult – one that is not only deserved, but morally required.

And I hope nobody will try to talk nonsense about Muslims who aren’t Islamists, i.e. why insult them. Here’s why. If they truly support free speech – they’ll understand; heck, a couple of them might even come out and do it in solidarity. If, on the other hand, they don’t truly support free speech: doesn’t that answer the quesion? They would be enablers of Islamo-fascism, precisely the people whose being insulted is morally required, if freedom per se is moral and worth defending, as I know it is.

You make a good point. It is true that it is noble and right to stand with people whose lives are targeted for saying something offensive.

But is it noble and right to intentionally offend peaceful bystaqnders with whom you have no beef in order to provoke a a completely predictable response from another group? Especially when its vitally important to build support among the worlds 1 billion non-terrorist Muslims.

I don’t see how.

Figure out a way to offend terrorists that doesn’t involve intentionally offending the one billion Muslims who are offended but aren’t responding with death threats and I’m there.

It seems a lot like trying to make a point about Fred Phelps by attacking ALL Christians.

It also seems like turning the war against terror into an attack against all of Islam.

In America, we don’t kill people for insults (real or imagined). That’s what free speech is. And to establish it as real, it is necessary that everybody must be insulted / ripped on at some time. I see 3 categories of reaction:

1) The grownups know to shrug it off. Or to laugh at it, as I do with bullies. Though the grownups may justly ask that insults it not be funded with taxpayer money. That would be my objection to Piss Christ: that I was forced at gunpoint (i.e. by government) to help pay for it. But I will defend somebody’s right to do a Piss Christ using their own money.

2) The little kids get tied up in knots, screech etc.

3) The criminals try to kill you. Or the criminals-at-heart threaten to, or “innocently” “predict” that you will be killed.

Group (3) is the point: they *must particularly* be insulted from time to time, if freedom is to be real and is to survive. And if they end up feeling unwelcome and leavin the country – Then fine.

Muslims who are offended should realize that free speech is a founding principle of the USA. Those not willing to accept this fact are free to leave. The exits are clearly marked.

But SoCal, nobody is coming to America and demanding we change. This is not the Netherlands, and the creators of South Park are not Geert Wilders.

Nor do I think there is any doubt that America will defend the liberties of our people should they be realistically threatened. (well, with the current president, who knows, but in general, its never been in real doubt has it?)

So, then, what we are talking about is what Muslim values IN Muslim countries should be.

These threats were made by Muslims in Muslim countries

Also, its not like the offense was unintentional. The threat was knowingly, intentionally provoked.

Lets not get all wrapped up in defending sacred American principles that dont actually exist. I hate to point out the obvious, but there is a concept even in American law called “fighting words”

So we are talking about intentionally offending 1 billion Muslims worldwide, to intentionally provoke an entirely predictable, and completely empty, impotent threat (which is itself just offensive speech)

for what purpose???

The only purpose I can see is to tell Muslims how to live in Muslim countries, because none of this has anything to do with how Muslims are behaving in America.

AE: Were that the case. Unfortunately, the facts directly conflate your argument: Islamists are “coming to America and demanding we change”.

And, whether you’d like to realize it or not, Islamists are demanding we change our freedom of speech and limit any criticism whatsoever of their radial beliefs. While I agree that Trey and Matt are not Geert Wilders (in fact, they’re much less radical), they are our version of Theo Van Gogh (imperfect as they may be).

The only question left to America is if we’ll stand by and let our Van Goghs be murdered. We have a choice, America: Stand with those who (albeit, clumsily and unartistically) challenge the Islamist hate-mongers, or stand with the politically-correct masses who cannot choose which they fear most: Offending the “non-terrorist” Muslims, or dying at the hands of the true radicals.

I say we stand by our principles, those of Free Expression, regardless of how much we may find them offensive, even if to ourselves.

Unfortunately, the facts directly conflate your argument: Islamists are “coming to America and demanding we change”.

Well. I’d be glad we agree that the facts conflate with my argument, but I suspect you meant they contradict my argument.

Yes, he demanded America change. I suppose I put it poorly when I said no one is demanding we change. He is. Obama does it just about every day. So does Rush Limbaugh, So do I. So do lots of people. It’s speech. Most political speech is a call for change. So, yes, I misspoke. I was responding to SoCal with his words. What I should have said is no one is making us change.

4. You dont seem to see the irony in complaining about his speech while simultaneously claiming you are doing it to defend free speech. He didnt threaten anyone. Even the police said he did nothing wrong.

And, whether you’d like to realize it or not, Islamists are demanding we change our freedom of speech and limit any criticism whatsoever of their radial beliefs

Yes! And people in hell demand ice water. So what? They don’t get any.

Whats important is not what douchebags demand, but how we change or don’t change our behavior. I dont change my behavior because of what douchebags say.

I didn’t think it was right to go around gratuitously offending people’s religious sensibilities before and I dont do it now. (Well, other than global warmism and the church of liberalism, but those dont count because they’re not real religions.)

The argument that what was previously offensive, over-broad and belligerent is now wise and measured because in addition to slapping all the wrong people in the face, it also provokes a few bad guys to do things we dont want them to do is a logical train wreck.

Lets be glad our military doesn’t fight like that! Can you imagine if they had just carpet bombed Iraq instead of doing their best to target only the bad guys and do their best to protect innocent civilians?

One thing is for sure, the surge wouldn’t have worked!

The surge worked precisely because Iraqis saw that our troops were going to great lengths to protect the innocent and fight only our common enemies — so they trusted our troops enough to work with them.

Trey and Matt havent been murdered. Nobody is talking about letting them be murdered.

But your response is the equivalent of carpet bombing Iraq rather than surgical strikes against just the common enemies we share with moderate Muslims.

If carpet bombing were the best we could do, then I’d say go for it. But its not the best we can do. We’ve learned. Its sloppy, uncreative, and counterproductive. That doesn’t help our cause, it turns people we need to support us against us. It turns a BILLION people against us. Thats a big number.

unless you think it wise to turn a fight against a relatively few radical Islamic terrorists, into a culture war between America and Islam itself?

I agree with Bush and our military who worked very hard to prevent that from happening.

“We want moderate Muslims on our side. Hard to do that while simultaneously slapping them in the face.” – American Elephant

I have to agree. Golden Rule.

If one wishes to depict Mohammed, then they should depict him as he was. We are not bound by the rules of Islam, so we can draw him, but if we don’t like disrespectful depictions of Christ, we shouldn’t do that with Mohammed. Even if he was horribly misguided, and essentially birthed a lie.

If you’re going to take inspiration from the recent South Park controversy, then showing Muhammad in a degrading posture or covered with shit or whatever kinda misses the point — because in the post 9/11 era, Comedy Central hasn’t even permitted SP to portray Muhammad in a neutral/respectful way (as they did once in July 2001). Similarly, during the Danish cartoon controversy, many Western news agencies declined to reprint ANY of the 12 cartoons — including one that simply showed a bearded man in traditional Arab costume walking with a donkey, and another that showed a STICK FIGURE with the word “Mohammad” written under it. So this is not just about anger over “disrespectful” treatment of Mohammad; this is about some Muslims attempting to assert totalitarian control over how everyone in the entire world THINKS about Mohammad.

(This last example is somewhat reminiscent of the “Dung Madonna” controversy — in that the Cubist-influenced portrait of an obese black woman in a blue robe wouldn’t have been recognized by most viewers as a depiction of Jesus’s mom had artist Chris Ofili not titled it “The Virgin Mary”.)

In the spirit of this, I suggest just grabbing some random images of anything and everything except for men in long beards and robes and labeling them “Mohammad”: Ricky Martin, Karen Carpenter, Jean-Luc Picard, Grover from Sesame Street, William Howard Taft, an origami crane wearing a suicide vest, a jar of dill pickles with plastic wiggle-eyes and wax lips, the eponymous Jake in Disney’s The Cat from Outer Space, etc.

The relevance of the comparison is not in the similarities of the groups but in the over broad response of intentionally offending a large swath of people that you ostensibly want to win over, in order to get at a small number.

Pissing off the entire general group in order to make an ineffective statement to the specific few.

It sounds very rah rah patriotic, but its really just juvenile and silly.

Will it stop anyone from targeting the South Park Guys if they intend to? No. Would it stop anyone from actually killing Trey and Matt if they intend to? No. Its utterly meaningless symbolic tripe that accomplishes nothing , prevents nothing and does nothing but offend Muslims all around the world that we are at least in theory trying to win over to our way of thinking. Muslims who have no intention of killing Matt and trey, but who, when this group of children poops on their religious beliefs, wont take it too kindly.

Does it do that? No, of course not, deeply offending people does not win them over to your way of thinking. It pisses them off and makes them MUCH less likely to listen to you.

AND I should add, makes our troops job much harder in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Christians, is it a “disrespectful depiction” when believing Muslims assert that Jesus was a prophet of Islam who ranked below Muhammad, whose only miracles attested in the Qur’an were being born to a virgin and magically bringing clay birds to life, and who was never crucified, let alone resurrected?-

If Muslims want to demand that Christians (and other non-Muslims) respect the Muslim taboo of not depicting Muhammad visually at all, shouldn’t Muslims (to be consistent) respect the Christian “taboo” of not denying Jesus’s crucifixion?

FWIW, and I mean this in all seriousness as a Christian, “Piss Christ” is not offensive because as a work of art, it shows Jesus entering into our sinful world and becoming human with all the messiness of being human. It’s a reminder of the fact that the Incarnation involved our excrement. Many fundamentalists need to be reminded of that fact, and sometimes art has to be in your face to make its point.

The only question left to America is if we’ll stand by and let our Van Goghs be murdered.

CP, exactly. Do we have to wait for them to be murdered, before we open our eyes?

We have a choice, America: Stand with those who (albeit, clumsily and unartistically) challenge the Islamist hate-mongers

There, I disagree. There was nothing clumsy or inartistic about how Trey and Matt challenged Islamist terrorism (because that’s what we’re talking about here – standing up to terrorism); they did it with a rather deft satire.

or stand with the politically-correct masses who cannot choose which they fear most: Offending the “non-terrorist” Muslims, or dying at the hands of the true radicals. I say we stand by our principles, those of Free Expression, regardless of how much we may find them offensive, even if to ourselves.

Somebody should make a Piss Mohammed, just to make the point: in the West, you get to do that to Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc. alike. If you dislike to the point where you would practice or at least applaud murder, then you are f*cked up and should absolutely get the hell out.

The more people who stand up and make that point – the less likely any Theo Van Gogh will be murdered on our streets.

If one wishes to depict Mohammed, then they should depict him as he was. We are not bound by the rules of Islam, so we can draw him, but if we don’t like disrespectful depictions of Christ, we shouldn’t do that with Mohammed. Even if he was horribly misguided, and [he] essentially birthed a lie.

longviewcyclist: You do realize that Trey and Matt were threatened with death only for depicting Mohammed, right? They didn’t depict him disrespectfully. They didn’t do anything like what I suggested, a Piss Mohammed.

“You do realize that Trey and Matt were threatened with death only for depicting Mohammed, right? They didn’t depict him disrespectfully.”

Thanks, ILC, for reminding us of that. Some of the people commenting here are blowing this up into a “piss Mohammed” sort of exercise when that was NEVER what was originally suggested.

As a Christian, I have been offended of some of the stuff I’ve seen on South Park. Know what? I got the hell over it. Just as we are all expected to get the hell over every offensive thing other people feel free to say to us any damn time they want to.

I’m with Don Henley, I’d like to find their Inner Child and kick its little ass.

There are many, many things in life we’re expected to just get over. And as far as endangering our troops are concerned, I agree with Ann Coulter. We don’t go to war against people who observe the Geneva Convention, anyway. They are savages.

There are things I’d rather do than draw pictures of Mohammed. But they’re probably against the Geneva Convention, too.

Again, FWIW, I’m not sure that Mohammed, PBUH, would necessarily be against a “Piss Mohammed,” per se. Mohammed, like Jesus, was a Prophet for the whole man, and was probably not afraid of urine. Allah is the Creator of all things, including our bowel movements. Such a depiction of Mohammed PBUH might be seen as a reminder that God who is as close to us as our jugular vein is part of our digestive process as well.

I also have the feeling that the Prophet laughed at himself and could take a little kidding.

I see both sides of the argument here. It is absolutely asinine and unfair that persons who are not adherent to a religion be subject to their rules and to penalties for not following them. Heck, even adherents shouldn’t be threatened with death for not following the rules. So when infantile, but violent Muslims made death threats for depicting Mohammed on South Park, my first reaction is for plenty of depictions of Mohammed made public as a big f&&k you to the persons making these threats.

Those of you who watch South Park have seen episodes where, if anything, has been much more offensive to Catholics, Jews, and Mormons. And the worst that has happened is that offended groups used their free speech rights to denounce Parker, Stone, and any station that aired it. No problem there.

I agree with Throbert with his points. At what point do non-adherents have to abide by certain rules? Should we not eat non-halal meats or drink alcohol so as to not offend certain Moslems? Should all women be forced to wear burkas? We even saw a teacher in an Islamic country a few years ago almost spend a long sentence of jail for calling a teddy bear Mohammed (perhaps that’s what inspired Parker and Stone). Of course, how would she have known of such an asinine rule? Just like we don’t hold Moslems, or other non-Christians (or even Christians, for that matter) to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was conceived immaculately, rose from the dead, etc. Moslems believe that Jesus was only a prophet, and are quite open about that belief. Should Moslems stop this practice if it gets some Christians nose out of joint?

I do get the idea of not lowering onself to make a point. But something has to be done to show that we will not be stopped by following someone else’s rules that we are not bound by. If there is a way to do this without offending all Moslems by doing so, just the fascist extremists, I would be all for that.

I didn’t think it was right to go around gratuitously offending people’s religious sensibilities before and I dont do it now. (Well, other than global warmism and the church of liberalism, but those dont count because they’re not real religions.)

AmericanElephant, you’ve made a lot of good points, but I disagree here. I don’t think religious sensibilities should be above any other sensibilities. In fact, this is a good part of the reason why there is a big huff over this nonsense.

“longviewcyclist: You do realize that Trey and Matt were threatened with death only for depicting Mohammed, right? They didn’t depict him disrespectfully. They didn’t do anything like what I suggested, a Piss Mohammed.

There is no reason to be snarky. The Golden Rule is essential to Christians. It is not ‘do unto others as they do unto you’, but ‘do unto others as you *would have* them do unto you’. If one is a Christian, they are supposed to follow it.

As I said, we are not bound to the rules of islam. Therefore, there is no conflict with our faith if we draw Mohamet, as a gesture showing that we will not tolerate terrorism, even though some muslims will take offense. It is when we make dishonest depictions of him that we *intend* to be offensive that we err. No Christian wants a Piss Christ, so shouldn’t make a Piss Mohamet.

Here’s an idea that was proposed to me earlier: depict Mohamet the way islam does. As a man who married a 9 year old girl, as someone who killed 800 Jews, etc. If muslims believe that that is true, then the only offense they could possibly take to it is the fact that we drew it.

“You do realize that Trey and Matt were threatened with death only for depicting Mohammed, right? They didn’t depict him disrespectfully. They didn’t do anything like what I suggested, a Piss Mohammed.” – ILoveCapitalism

Yes, I did and do realize that. Sorry if it wasn’t clear in my earlier posts. My only point is that Christians can stand up against this crap without going against our faith.

“My only point is that Christians can stand up against this crap without going against our faith.”

Agreed. People are constantly demanding that I, as a Christian, apologize for Pat Robertson, apologize for Jerry Falwell, apologize for this one’s homophobia or that one’s sexism or whatever. It really wears thin after a while.

It doesn’t matter what Christians do, some people are always going to see Christianity as an evil and oppressive system. But for the gay Left, who all too often give even radical Islam a free pass, to be that closed-minded against ALL Christians has gone well beyond hypocrisy.

The Gay left seems always willing to look the other way when gay people in Islamic countries are beheaded or hanged simply for who they are. I wish I had a dollar for every time somebody in “the community” huffily informed me that no matter what Christians did to atone for homophobia in the American church, it would never, never, never, never, EVER suffice.

Its not about religious sensibilities being more important than other sensibilities. That is the FALSE narrative that libs have constructed. (I thought conservatives were wise to the fact that liberals construct false narratives, but apparently some are not that bright)

Its about not sh*tting where you eat.

Our troops have been working their asses off for the past six years, putting their OWN lives at risk, in many cases giving UP their lives, to garner the support and cooperation of these people, to convince them that we have no problem with them in GENERAL, but only with SPECIFIC terrorists.

And now these blithering idiots come along and say, “Hey! America says f*ck ALL OF YOU!

And why? Because their freedom was at risk?

Anyone who really believes their freedom is at risk is an idiot.

You are more likely in America to be killed by a LIBERAL who doesn’t like what you have to say than by a Muslim who doesn’t like what you have to say.

yet are any of these SIMPLETONS organizing similar protests to draw a line in the sand for all Democrats? No. Because it would be silly to. Nobody in their right mind thinks ALL Democrats want to silence you with acts of violence, yet these dumbsh*ts are behaving as though ALL Muslims want to silence us with acts of violence.

Apparently some dumbasses havent learned over the last six years that there is a DIFFERENCE between terrorists in specific, and Muslims in general.

It is the utter stupidity of having what amounts to a “F*ck ‘You People’ Day” and instead of telling only the small group of people who deserve to be told to f*ck off, to f*ck off, intentionally adding another billion people who dont deserve it.

it is people too stupid to understand the difference between the concept of “general” and “specific”

Its gratuitously painting with a broad brush for what amounts to absolutely NOTHING more than masturbatory purposes.

And the idea that “people need to learn to get over it” is equally asinine.

They WILL get over it, and they HAVE gotten over it when its been done in the past, but thats not a reasonable justification to antagonize people our military has been risking their lives to garner the support of!

I am accustomed to this level of obtuseness from liberals. I THOUGHT conservatives were smarter. Apparently not.

I would also point out, that Dan the dildo columnist Savage with his “F*ck all Muslims Day” is doing EXACTLY what liberals claimed President Bush and Republicans were doing with the war on terror — they claimed we were going after “Muslims” not terrorists and that we risked “enflaming the Muslim world”.

All of which we rightly denied, because the war was targeted and specific.

I guess supporters of “F*ck All Muslims Day” were full of shit when they denied that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not attacks on Islam itself.

Like I said, I am used to hypocrisy, incoherence, contradiction and obtuseness from liberals. I THOUGHT conservatives were intellectually consistent. I apparently thought wrong.

Here’s an idea that was proposed to me earlier: depict Mohamet the way islam does. As a man who married a 9 year old girl, as someone who killed 800 Jews, etc. If muslims believe that that is true, then the only offense they could possibly take to it is the fact that we drew it.

As you know, Trey Parker and Matt Stone didn’t even do that much – and they got death threats for it. That’s plain evil.

Likewise, “Draw Mohammed Day” doesn’t even propose to do as much as you, longviewcyclist, just proposed. So I guess you support it in the end.

A person, or a society, which cannot bring itself to draw Mohammed in defiance of evil terrorists is a dhimmi – a person/society which has lost their freedom.

As for someone doing a Piss Mohammed type of depiction: I don’t see how the Golden Rule applies here because, as I’ve indicated, I personally have no problem with someone doing a Piss Christ – as long as they are doing it with their own money. A person/society whose money is expropriated by force of government to support Piss Christ (or Piss Mohammed or Piss Buddha or whatever), is a person/society who has lost a key piece of their freedom.

I do get the idea of not lowering onself to make a point. But something has to be done to show that we will not be stopped by following someone else’s rules that we are not bound by. If there is a way to do this without offending all Moslems by doing so, just the fascist extremists, I would be all for that.

Any Muslim who values free speech will not be offended; valuing free speech as they do, they will support it. And any Muslim who is offended, is a Muslim who doesn’t value free speech. That’s a clear and important distinction.

Trying to pretend that the Stranger’s “F*ck Muslims Day!” is some sort of respectful protest is yet more disingenuousness on top of disingenuousness. Especially when the ORGANIZERS of the event themselves are promoting it as an event to directly mock Islam by drawing Muhammad as a dog-purse, a box of pasta, etc, or, if you read the comments, butt plugs and the like:

If I draw Mohammed as a butt plug, is that taking it too far? Cuz I think it would be just far enough…

Its not intellectual, its juvenile. Its not clever, it’s clumsy, inept and obtuse. Muslims see our commitment to free speech every day. The world is saturated with American free speech. They understand that we CAN say anything we want. They have no doubt whatsoever that we are not bound by their customs, and UNTIL NOW they understood that while we COULD say all sorts of offensive things about Islam if we wanted to, that we were CHOOSING not to out of a desire to be respectful, to differentiate Islam from terrorism, and to try to get along.

Now a bunch of bumbling, blithering idiots claiming essentially that “if you dont tell Muslims to fuck off, the terrorists will win!!!” are making clear to Muslims that we DONT differentiate radical extremists from Muslims and we have no intention of being respectful or demonstrating that we want to get along with the general Muslim population.

Its just slapping muslims in the face to establish that we can slap them in the face if we want to — something that has never been in doubt — while our troops have been busting their asses for 6 years to ensure Muslims that our only quibble is with specific terrorists and engender trust and cooperation among the general Muslim population.

It’s masturbatory. Or as Sarah Palin said to Obama recently (on a different topic) just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should.

this liberal protest, like all liberal protests is stupid, childish, unimaginative, overbroad, incoherent, hypocritical, ineffective and actually counterproductive. The first red flag should be that its a LIBERAL PROTEST! All that’s missing are giant puppets, a drum circle and hairy topless lesbians.

meanwhile, our troops have to deal with the fallout. I wonder how much of their work will be undone? how much harder the “F*ck Islam Day” will make it to get help from the Iraqi and Afghani Muslims they are working with?

Trying to pretend that the Stranger’s “F*ck Muslims Day!” is some sort of respectful protest is yet more disingenuousness on top of disingenuousness. Especially when the ORGANIZERS of the event themselves are promoting it as an event to directly mock Islam by drawing Muhammad as a dog-purse, a box of pasta, etc, or, if you read the comments, butt plugs and the like:

If I draw Mohammed as a butt plug, is that taking it too far? Cuz I think it would be just far enough…

Its not intellectual, its juvenile. Its not clever, it’s clumsy, inept and obtuse. Muslims see our commitment to free speech every day. The world is saturated with American free speech. They understand that we CAN say anything we want. They have no doubt whatsoever that we are not bound by their customs, and UNTIL NOW they understood that while we COULD say all sorts of offensive things about Islam if we wanted to, that for the most part we were CHOOSING not to out of a desire to be respectful, to differentiate Islam from terrorism, and to try to get along.

Now a bunch of bumbling, blithering idiots claiming essentially that “dur, if you dont tell Muslims to f*ck off, the terrorists will win!!!” are making clear to Muslims that we DONT differentiate radical extremists from Muslims and we have no intention of being respectful or demonstrating that we want to get along with the general Muslim population.

Its just slapping muslims in the face to establish that we can slap them in the face if we want to — something that has never been in doubt — while our troops have been busting their asses for 6 years to ensure Muslims that our only quibble is with specific terrorists and engender trust and cooperation among the general Muslim population.

It’s masturbatory. Or as Sarah Palin (who if nothing else is evidently much smarter than this lot) said to Obama recently (on a different topic) just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you should.

this liberal protest, like all liberal protests is stupid, childish, unimaginative, overbroad, incoherent, hypocritical, ineffective and actually counterproductive. The first red flag should be that its a LIBERAL PROTEST! All that’s missing are giant puppets, a drum circle and hairy topless lesbians.

meanwhile, our troops have to deal with the fallout. I wonder how much of their work will be undone? I wonder how much harder the “F*ck Muslims Day” will make it to get cooperation from the Iraqi and Afghan Muslims they have been trying to build relationships and cooperation with risking their own lives in many cases to do so?

Its not about religious sensibilities being more important than other sensibilities. That is the FALSE narrative that libs have constructed. (I thought conservatives were wise to the fact that liberals construct false narratives, but apparently some are not that bright)

AmericanElephant, I do my best to not add meaning to what other people write. And my apparent wrong assumption had nothing to do what you believe the liberals (as well as conservative) have constructed. You made a point of saying religious sensitivities, and differentiating between that and other sensitivities, which is what led to my conclusion. I’ll stand corrected now.

Our troops have been working their asses off for the past six years, putting their OWN lives at risk, in many cases giving UP their lives, to garner the support and cooperation of these people, to convince them that we have no problem with them in GENERAL, but only with SPECIFIC terrorists.

And I don’t see how, even if misguided, this protest changes that. If we are all valuing freedom here and abroad, then those who may be offended should recognize that this. We want freedom for all Iraqis even though almost all of them regard Jesus as only a prophet, in contradiction to what most of this country’s citizens believe.

Its about not sh*tting where you eat.

When you are calling one of the blogmasters “a blithering idiot,” aren’t you doing that? Or is it just the liberals who support this that are blithering idiots? Or everyone else but Bruce?

And why? Because their freedom was at risk?
Anyone who really believes their freedom is at risk is an idiot.

Perhaps you are attributing the wrong reasons that some (or even most) are participating in this protest.

The first red flag should be that its a LIBERAL PROTEST!

Interesting. First of all, it seems that as many conservatives as liberals, if not more, are participating in this protest. And also, it seems like it’s the left that usually excuses bad behavior from Moslems.

Any Muslim who values free speech will not be offended; valuing free speech as they do, they will support it. And any Muslim who is offended, is a Muslim who doesn’t value free speech. That’s a clear and important distinction.

ILC, I’m not sure about this. One can value free speech and at the same time be offended by some free speech. In this case, many moderate Muslims are offended by depictions of Mohammed on the one hand, but believe that others have the right to do so. So what I question is, should we participate in a protest that will insult people who are innocent in this whole matter? On the other hand, are we talking about something that is petty enough that we shouldn’t worry about whether people are insulted about it (i.e., tough noogies to those who are offended by the depiction of Mohammed)? How constrained to others’ sensibilities should we be to fight back?

Here’s an idea that was proposed to me earlier: depict Mohamet the way islam does. As a man who married a 9 year old girl, as someone who killed 800 Jews, etc. If muslims believe that that is true, then the only offense they could possibly take to it is the fact that we drew it.

Longviewcyclist, I understand your points as well, but found this to be inconsistent with what you later wrote.

I was arguing against the ideas some folks were proposing about drawing Mohamet in ways meant to be offensive (i.e. ‘drawing him as a buttplug’).

I’m not a Muslim, and certainly not Mohammed. But if I had to choose between being depicted as A) a buttplug or B) someone who married a 9-year-old child or C) someone who slaughtered 800 persons, I would choose A hands down.

I was arguing against the ideas some folks were proposing about drawing Mohamet in ways meant to be offensive

How nice of you, longviewcyclist to finally at long last say what you supposedly meant all along.

ILC, I’m not sure about this. One can value free speech and at the same time be offended by some free speech.

First, let’s go back to Piss Christ. No, I don’t think it’s art. Yes, I am basically offended by it. But, if it were the case that the artist hadn’t looted me to make it, I would defend absolutely his right to offend me. That’s because I value free speech.

Now let’s go back to Draw Mohammed Day. What most people (leaving me out) have proposed there is nothing remotely like a Piss Mohammed. And the people who are offended are people who despise free speech and who will either murder to abolish it, or at least applaud murder. Offending them (in ways so light and moderate as Draw Mohammed Day) is necessary to defend free speech, that is to say, it is ethically mandatory.

So what I question is, should we participate in a protest that will insult people who are innocent in this whole matter?

But the only Muslims who are “innocent in this whole matter”, other than children (who are easily shielded), are the Muslims who actually value free speech. What I question is, should they or will they actually be offended – if it is true that they value free speech? See above.

longviewcyclist – don’t worry about what I said at the top of #64, I was going for a joke that didn’t come out right (as sometimes happens) and isn’t worth explaining.

When [one calls] one of the blogmasters “a blithering idiot,” [isn’t one crapping where one eats]?

Pat, that is a fine point and what I have long had to say to many who come to this blog, only to insult Bruce or his positions (in silly, stupid ways I won’t repeat). This blog costs money to run, and I have a good guess who pays it. And in this controversy, as in the entire Long War with the Islamists, real people have undergone real death threats. Freedom is very much at risk.

AE – the point is that Muslims (obligatory disclaimer: not all, moderate, etc) do want us to change. They’re succeeding in Europe and Canada – and in the US (look up CAIR, the flying imams, disappearing Somali “refugee” “youths”, and the fact that we’re sending soldiers to die for “that which cannot be named”).

A draw Mo day seems silly on many levels but it’s not gratuitous.

I’ve become far more isolationist and “xenophobic” than I used to be. There are 56 member nations in the OIC. Muslims that want to live in a sharia state should certainly be able to find one nation from the 56 with whatever level of sharia they feel up to living under. Ditto for people wanting to live in a Hispanic culture, Scandinavian-style welfare state with hedonism for all, etc).

If drawing Mohammed means that some Afghan or Iraqi is less helpful to our military – fine. All the more reason for us to get out with a stern warning that the next time they attack us, we will be back to kill their people and wreck their stuff – leaving them with the aftermath. Other than that, if they want to live in the 7th century, let ’em have at it.

With freedom of speech comes offense. I am offended by something or other everyday but I accept the offense as the price I pay to live free from fear of being persecuted for my opinions.

P.S. If any of the rational people here do have concerns about Draw Mohammed Day hurting our troops in theater, please feel free to state your concerns in your own words, in a comment addressing me, and I will be glad to answer / give my reasons for not worrying.

First, let’s go back to Piss Christ. No, I don’t think it’s art. Yes, I am basically offended by it. But, if it were the case that the artist hadn’t looted me to make it, I would defend absolutely his right to offend me. That’s because I value free speech.

ILC, since I am ambivalent here, I’m probably not making my point clearly. If I understand you correctly, you had a problem with public funding for “Piss Christ.” But even if that was not an issue, you would be offended by it, but obviously would not threaten violence to any party to the “art.” If I have the correct, that’s fine. And that’s all part of free speech.

Also, I have no problem (sort of) with Muslims also being offended by the South Park, as long as they accept it as part of free speech.

So my question is, should we do something that we know that is going to offend even those who are innocent (even though we know they understand free speech and all that)? Or should we even worry that a simple depiction of Mohammed is offensive to some, just as most Christians are not offended by Muslims who regard Jesus as only a prophet.

I don’t know if this clarifies my point. Or perhaps this is an area of disagreement here.

If drawing Mohammed means that some Afghan or Iraqi is less helpful to our military – fine.

SoCalRobert, good point that I meant to address before. One of the supposed liberal arguments for not going to war with Iraq is that the people are not ready for freedom. While I was against the war, I didn’t believe the line about the Iraqi people not being ready for freedom (just that there are other factors, like powerful persons, who will do anything to stifle freedom). However, if Iraqi or Afghan soldiers are not going to be helpful to the cause because of this protest, then perhaps they are not ready for freedom.

So my question is, should we do something that we know that is going to offend even those who are innocent (even though we know they understand free speech and all that)?

Yes. Fair question. And my question back is: Who’s innocent? Answer: Those Muslims who truly value free speech. (You would understand that Muslims are not children and are perfectly capable of valuing free speech.) But, being *by definition* Muslims who truly value free speech, they would be happy to defend the Mohammed drawings as, say, I am happy to defend artists who offend my religious sensibilities. Otherwise, no, they don’t truly value free speech.

I am saying that the only Muslims who would truly be offended by Mohammed drawings are the ones who have already registered their outrage, in the form of death threats (or death “predictions”, wink) on Trey and Matt. Islamo-fascists whom we have, if anything, a moral obligation to offend.

Or should we even worry that a simple depiction of Mohammed is offensive to some

My answer to that is: No. (Reasons given above)

if Iraqi or Afghan soldiers are not going to be helpful to the cause [of freedom] because of this protest, then perhaps they are not ready for freedom.

That’s one way to put it. Here’s another. Ordinary Iraqis and Afghans have much, *much* bigger things to think about, than this protest. For example, escaping al Qaeda torture. The ones who are going to be offended by Draw Mohammed Day and motivated by it against the U.S., are the ones already fighting us and perpetrating such torture on their fellow citizens.

That’s to the extent they even know about the protest. They already know enough, in a general way, that we aren’t Muslim and that we do things like, say, drinking alcohol, and Piss Christ (which offends them, BTW – Jesus is one of their prophets), and gay sex, and Britney Spears, and a host of other things besides drawing Mohammed. Trust me, I’ve been to Muslim countries and they already know, in a way that is general but fully adequate to their decision-making, about our devotion to free speech. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

Finally, let’s remember that CP is in the military and he’s the one who brought up Draw Mohammed Day. Evidently, he’s not all that worried. (I imagine, for reasons similar to what I just gave.)

I think it’s important to note, as well, in this debate what freedom of religious expression does and does not mean.

It means your freedom to practice and express your faith, and my freedom to do the same with regard to mine.

No one is talking about forcing Muslims, at gunpoint, to draw pictures of Mohammed. They are not being compelled to take part in this exercise.

I’m not sure if anything very constructive can be accomplished by the whole “Draw Mohammed” thing, either. I don’t think I’d go very far out of my way to participate in it. But I do think that free speech is no less sacred for Christians than it is for Muslims.

If the only difference we can find is that Muslims threaten to kill people who offend their sensibilities, while Christians don’t, sorry, but I don’t see the difference as one worthy of my respect as an American.

After having read and thought about American Elephant’s posts, I am reconsidering the wisdom of Draw Mohamet Day period. He has valid points.

Thank you Longviewcyclist! Its a great relief to have someone see reason.

the point is that Muslims (obligatory disclaimer: not all, moderate, etc) do want us to change.

SoCal, yes, your neighbors want you to change the color of your home. Do you go out and paint “F*ck You!” on the windows using the color they dislike just to establish that you still have the right to? That is EXACTLY what this childish liberal protest is doing. Actually its not, because in order to be akin to this mindless protest, you would have to paint “F*ck You’ on EVERY SIDE of your house, addressing it to ALL your neighbors, not just the ones who object to the color.

Think that’s going to help your relations with your neigbors?

No, because its gratuitous and your rights are not in doubt.

Believe me, with the world saturated in American free speech there is no doubt that we retain the right to offend Muslims if we want to. In fact, Hollywood and the music industry offend them, making your point for you, every day of the week. So why is there a need to make a big show of intentionally pooping on their religion?

All sorts of people want us to change in ways we aren’t going to change.

Its actually the “F*ck Muslims Day” supporters who are changing their behavior.

They’re succeeding in Europe and Canada – and in the US

Ahhh, but as I said before, people in hell want ice water. Radical Islamic Fundamentalists want sharia. What people WANT is not an issue, what we give them is the only thing that matters. And the people who are changing their behavior are GIVING them power over them. They are changing their behavior. They are validating the tactics.

More importanly, you are blaming Muslims when your real complaint is with liberal judges, politicians and bureaucrats who gave in to those demands out of political correctness.

That’s the only danger to our freedom of speech here too.

But flipping the bird to all Muslims certainly doesn’t make them want to change us any less, indeed it makes moderate Muslims LESS likely to listen to our arguments.

When you want people to consider your ideas, it behooves you to not tell them to “f*ck off” while doing it. Save the insults for the douchebags we dont care about. Target them SPECIFICALLY. Instead of this childish lashing out at all Muslims.

And when there are over 1 billion Muslims on Earth, we need to care about finding as many moderates as possible. Just as we need to care about making clear that our war is against Islamic extremists, not Muslims in general.

This childish inept demonstration does the exact opposite, lumping ALL mulims in with the extremists who are our enemy.

Something President Bush, our military and most conservatives who understand this war have gone to great lengths to NOT do.

No one ever accused the left of intellectual consistency, but its disappointing to see so many on the right lose sight of it. (Well, some douchebags never had it)

If drawing Mohammed means that some Afghan or Iraqi is less helpful to our military – fine. All the more reason for us to get out with a stern warning that the next time they attack us,

The first problem with this arguement is that we DIDNT get out with a stern warning. Our troops are there in harms way, with a mission that will be FAR easier with cooperation from the people this demonstration would offend.

The other problem is that it makes light of the many ways in which cooperation is in OUR interests.

You dont want moderate Muslims informing on al Qaeda?

I suspect you understand the value of that.

With freedom of speech comes offense.

Muslim countries dont HAVE freedom of speech. We’re talking about how to relate to people with different values.

On the one hand, you are saying let them live in the 7th century with Sharia law, on the other hand, you are demanding that they value free speech.

Sorry, you cant have both. And as I just explained, there are many reasons America needs to garner the support of, not spit in the eye of, moderate Muslims.

Again, the first indication that it was a stupid, inept, counterproductive idea should be that it came from “progressives”.

As sane people have no trouble seeing, the actual point of Draw Mohammed Day will be to defend our freedom by spreading the risk of retaliation. That is how the public can help brave souls like Stone, Parker, Hirsi Ali, and others who exercise and defend our freedoms at no small personal risk. Honestly, I’m still mulling over what my exact participation is going to be. But I will sure be proud of everyone who does participate.

If these people didn’t run around flinging poop and screeching like monkeys every time anyone — however inadvertently — offended them, would this even be an issue?

The folks in Europe are beginning to turn away from their longstanding dhimmitude and recognize that women don’t have to put up with being raped because people WHO CHOSE TO LIVE AMONG THEM are offended by their clothing, gays born and raised in a country should be safe living there regardless of what foreigners WHO CHOSE TO LIVE AMONG THEM happen to believe about them, etc.

If you don’t think this is coming — and soon — to an American city near you, just think again. Leftists swoon over all the stale, crazy notions that float across the ocean from Europe.

My initial reaction to this post was, I must admit, that the whole “Draw Mohammed” exercise sounded pretty frat-boy. But I understand the explanation that if we all stand together against having values hostile to our own forced upon us, those who screech and fling poop (or bombs) will have too many targets to handle.

This, AE, like everything you’ve said on this thread, is completely stupid.

I’m sure that James Taranto, the editor of The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Page and author of the invaluable daily, Best of the Web would be amused to know you think it’s stupid. Because he not only agrees with me, but his language and ideas are so similar to mine, it sounds as though hes been reading my comments:

Everybody Burn the Flag
If we don’t act like inconsiderate jerks, the terrorists will have won!

…Until 1989, it was a crime in some states to burn the American flag as a political statement. In Texas v. Johnson the U.S. Supreme Court held that this is protected symbolic speech. In ensuing years members of Congress repeatedly tried to propose a constitutional amendment permitting the criminalization of flag burning. It is the view of this column that flag burning is and should remain protected speech. We deplore it nonetheless, and we think holding an “Everybody Burn the Flag Day” would be stupid, obnoxious and counterproductive if one seeks to persuade others that flag burning should be tolerated. [AE: gosh that language sounds familiar!]

“Hate speech”–for example, shouting racial slurs, positing theories of racial supremacy or denying the Holocaust–is illegal in Canada and many European countries. In the U.S. it is protected by the First Amendment–but it has been known to provoke a violent reaction. Last week we noted that left-wing counterprotesters beat up members of a white-supremacist group who were holding a rally in Los Angeles. The Associated Press reports from Pearl, Miss., that “a white supremacist lawyer was stabbed and beaten to death by a black neighbor who had done yard work for him, police said Friday.”

It’s not clear if the motive for the Mississippi killing was political, but surely everyone can agree that battery and murder are not appropriate responses to the expression of invidious views. This column is also of the opinion that hate-speech laws are pernicious and that the First Amendment does and should protect the expression of even ugly and false ideas. But we would not endorse or participate in an “Everybody Shout a Racial Slur Day” or an “Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day” to make the point.

Why is “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” different? Because the taboo against depictions of Muhammad is not a part of America’s common culture. The taboos against flag burning, racial slurs and Holocaust denial are. The problem with the “in-your-face message” of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” is not just that it is inconsiderate of the sensibilities of others, but that it defines those others–Muslims–as being outside of our culture, unworthy of the courtesy we readily accord to insiders. It is an unwise message to send, assuming that one does not wish to make an enemy of the entire Muslim world. [read the whole thing]

I’d also point out that Taranto said,

Our reflexive response to “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day”–which we too thought was serious, not having seen Norris’s cartoon or her disclaimer–was sympathetic.

But part of being a conservative is NOT being reflexive, but actually thinking things through. If you want to be a knee-jerk lemming, be a regressive. That’s where emotional, reflexive, hysterical reaction has its home.

I would also point out that the artist who STARTED the whole thing has since changed her mind and withdrawn her support of the event.

[…] think it appropriate for him to use this blog promote Draw Mohammed Day. In the comment thread I agreed with Banzel: Not a good idea to gratuitously offend tens of millions of people (think depictions of […]